Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds neighborhood‑preservation finding but grants appeal on soil‑importation claim in contested Fairview case
Summary
After a multi‑hour quasi‑judicial hearing with competing geotechnical testimony, the Board of Supervisors upheld a West County BZA finding that a property creates a public nuisance under the neighborhood preservation ordinance and ordered abatement reporting, but granted the property owner's appeal of the specific soil‑importation zoning violation, directing a 120‑day technical analysis and abatement schedule.
The Board of Supervisors on Nov. 13 issued a mixed ruling in a disputed enforcement case stemming from alleged illegal soil importing and debris placement on a steep lot above Ward Creek in the Fairview area.
County code enforcement presented photographic and video evidence dated Oct. 2019 through March 2020 and a county‑retained geotechnical peer review (GEI) that concluded foreign fill and debris were present on Lot 24 and created an unstable slope condition. The West County Board of Zoning Adjustments previously found violations of the Alameda County neighborhood preservation ordinance and the soil‑importing provisions of the zoning code.
Appellants (property owners represented by attorney Jim Treppa) disputed the importation allegation, presenting sworn affidavits and testimony asserting that soil had been moved from adjacent Lot 28 across the owners' own property (not imported from offsite) and challenging the completeness of the county's geotechnical review. Multiple geotechnical practitioners testified: Quantum Geotechnical (Simon Macdessie) estimated roughly 165 cubic yards of foreign fill on the complainant's property; the county's consultant (Craig/Greg Hall of GEI) reported imported fill and recommended further investigation; other independent engineers described erosion gullies and slope instability that allow sediment transport to Ward Creek.
Supervisors heard detailed testimony about the evidentiary record, differing engineer methods, limits on site access, and changed site conditions (erosion, gullies) between 2019 and 2025. Several residents, environmental advocates, and local engineers urged abatement to prevent sediments from reaching Ward Creek and harming aquatic habitat.
After deliberation, the board voted to deny the appeal as to the neighborhood preservation ordinance (upholding BZA's finding of an ongoing public nuisance that requires abatement) but to grant the appeal as to the soil‑importation zoning code allegation (zoning ordinance 17.6605), citing inconclusive evidence on the origin and quantity of fill. The board adopted a resolution requiring the owner to retain a licensed professional within 120 days to provide a detailed geotechnical and environmental analysis, a testing plan, and abatement recommendations; that work is to be submitted to staff and reviewed by the West County BZA prior to finalization. Supervisors also discussed potential neutral third‑party validation of any owner‑commissioned testing to ensure credibility.
The motion carried by roll call (Ayes: Marquez, Tam, Miley, Halbert; Supervisor Fortunato Bass excused). The board's decision leaves the nexus of enforcement intact (the county will pursue abatement for the nuisance condition) while recognizing unresolved technical questions about how much imported material, if any, arrived from offsite.
